Read More

This usually manifests as pain and irritation to the eyes, nose, chest and skin and because platinum salts were an essential part of the work the men did, they all lost their careers.

Mr Cipilo, 43 who the Mail Online report is from Waltham Cross, Mr York, 48, from Ware, and Mr Dryden had previously lost their High Court and Court of Appeal cases trying to get compensation.

In the previous cases it was decided that the men could not claim compensation against their employer as the sensitivity to the platinum salts was not ‘actionable’.

What is actionable?

‘Actionable’ is a legal term which is the measure by which a claimant can make a compensation claim.

The workers had not yet developed those symptoms so the question was whether they had suffered sufficient ‘damage’ to be ‘actionable’.

Johnson Matthey’s defence

The company had argued that by removing the workers from the areas in the factory in which they would come into contact with platinum salts, they would never suffer from symptoms and therefore had no loss.

However the workers' lawyers argued that this overlooked the devastating financial impact the removal had on the men.

Supreme Court judgement

In today’s ruling the five Supreme Court judges unanimously agreed that the sensitivity to platinum salts, while symptomless, did constitute an ‘actionable’ personal injury claim and so the men could make a claim against the company.

In the judgment, which was made following a two day hearing on November 27-28 last year, the judges said: “Suppose that the claimants were coffee tasters, employed because they had the ability to distinguish different flavours and qualities of coffee, by smell and taste.

Read More

“Suppose further that, through negligence, their sense of smell or taste became impaired in a way which would be of absolutely no consequence to anyone who was not employed in this particular role, but meant that they could no longer do their jobs and had to seek other employment.

“I venture to suggest that there would be little difficulty in accepting that the changes to their bodies were actionable personal injury.”

Supreme Court in London (Image: PA Wire/PA Images)

Landmark judgment

Harminder Bains from the law firm Leigh Day was asked to take over the men’s case after they lost their challenge in the Court of Appeal.

Robert Weir QC and Patrick Kerr represented the men at the Supreme Court.

Harminder, who is the industrial disease partner at Leigh Day, said: “This judgment is a landmark judgment in the definition of personal injury for those workers who have been negligently exposed in the workplace and who have suffered an injury which may be symptomless but which has a huge impact on their work and subsequently their life.

“My clients are delighted with this decision from the Supreme Court and will now return to the High Court to proceed to a trial for how much their lost wages and other benefits are worth following the negligent exposure to platinum salts.

“They have lost their highly skilled jobs in these chemical plants, In addition, there are other men who, sadly, have been similarly exposed, and we will be looking to widen the claims out to all those affected.

“This landmark judgment is a clear warning to all employers that they cannot side-step their health and safety responsibilities to their employees and must not cut corners and expose other workers to hazardous working conditions.”